Allahabad High Court
Hari Ram Singh And Others vs State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others on 27 July, 2012
Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 38
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 3188 of 2012
Petitioner :- Hari Ram Singh And Others
Respondent :- State Of U.P. Thru Secy. And Others
Petitioner Counsel :- Vinay Singh,Sanjeev Singh
Respondent Counsel :- C.S.C.,Lavlesh Shukla
Hon'ble Amreshwar Pratap Sahi,J.
The petitioners in the year 2011 appeared in the main examination of MSc. first year and second year Chemistry with their respective roll numbers.
It appears that the Principal of the Institution submitted a report copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure-2 to the counter affidavit where an indication was given that the answer books which have been ultimately evaluated do not bear those serial numbers of the answer books which were originally issued to the petitioners. Consequently, with this change having been noted the contention of the University is that the petitioners were put to notice whereafter the impugned order has been passed declaring them to have used unfair means and cancelled their examinations with a further rider that they shall not be allowed to appear in any further examination of the University.
The petitioners contend that whatever material has been relied upon by the Respondent-University they were never informed about the same before taking action on the allegations as have been reproduced in the impugned order dated 13.12.2011.
Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the impugned order is erroneous and it proceeds on facts about which the petitioners were never put to notice. He contends that apart from this, the reason for cancelling the results is in no way a default on the part of the petitioners, as they have submitted the answer books with the same serial number that was provided to them at the examination centre. He further contends that the invigilator has also not made any adverse report and, therefore, the conclusion drawn by the University is against the weight of evidence on record.
Replying to the aforesaid submissions learned counsel for the University contends that after having received the report of the Principal a note was put up on 7th June, 2011 indicating that the report of the Principal is correct. It is thereafter the University proceeded to take action and it was found that whatever answer books have been handed down by the petitioners, the answer books which were ultimately evaluated, did not bear the same serial number. Consequently the stand of the University is that different answer books have been submitted for evaluation.
From the records and after having perused the rejoinder affidavit of the petitioner, this Court does not find any challenge to the report submitted by the Principal which has been filed along with the counter affidavit as Annexure-2 along with the noting of the University.
In view of this, the fact that the answer books were changed stands undisputed. Even assuming that the petitioners were not at fault yet they seek to derive benefit from the changed answer books and therefore, the only inference that can be drawn is that the answer books must have been changed with the collusion of the petitioners. This Court, therefore, does not find any reason to interfere with the impugned order.
The writ petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2012
Manish
